A. N. Verma, J.:- - (1.) THESE three petitions can be disposed of by a common order as the impugned orders are also common.
(2.) SANTOSH Kumar Kesarwani petitioner in writ petitions no. 7772 and 7773 of 1979 is admittedly the owner and landlord of two houses nos. 248 and 249 situate in the City of Allahabad. One Om Narain Verma was the tenant of house no. 248 whereas house no. 249 was occupied by four different tenants namely Suraj Bhan Bahal, Nagar Mahapalika, Brijlal and Niranjan Lal. The aforesaid landlord filed applications for eviction of the various tenants under Section 21 (1). The application was based on both clauses (a) and (b) of Section 21 of the aforesaid Act. It was alleged that the landlord bonafide needed the premises for his own use and occupation. It was further alleged that the buildings were in dilapidated condition and were required for being demolished and reconstructed. The application was contested only by Om Narain Verma, Suraj Bhan Bahal and Niranjan Lal. The other tenants did not contest the application. The case of the contesting tenants was that the building under the tenancy was not dilapidated, nor was it required for being demolished and reconstructed. It was also denied that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. The tenants asserted: that in any case they will suffer irreparable loss, if they were evicted from the building under tenancy. The Prescribed Authority dismissed all the four applications. The landlord, thereupon, filed four appeals. The learned II Additional District Judge, Allahabad allowed the application of the landlord as against the tenants Nagar Mahapalika and Brijmohan Lal. As regards Suraj Bhan Bahal, also the application of the landlord was dismissed except for verandah on the ground floor which was used by the tenant for tethering cattle. The appeal of the landlord against Om Narain Verma was also dismissed.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid orders, the landlord has filed two petitions in this court, both directed against the refusal of the courts below to order eviction of Om Narain Verma and Suraj Bhan Bahal, while Suraj Bhan Bahal has filed a petition challenging that part of the order of the appellate court by which the verandah forming part of his tenancy on the ground floor was directed to be released in favour of the landlord. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the validity of the orders passed by the courts below. So far as the decision of the courts below as regards the case of the landlord under clause (a) of Section 21 (1) is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to point out any error whatsoever. The decision of the courts below rejecting the landlords application under clause (a) of Section 21 (1) is, therefore, affirmed.;